I think it’s pointless to quibble about very specific things like this, but that gets thrown out the window when someone claims “Definitions are the very basics in writing, check them before you publish” and then use their own nonstandard definition!
Seems like they wanted to nitpick about term usage when:
a) the usage they’re taking issue with is actually fairly commonplace (e.g. https://www.who.int/news/item/27-10-2017-who-to-review-its-i...)
b) their own suggested replacement is very heterodox (I’ve certainly never heard anyone call it that).
Mentioned, yes, but not correctly. They should have put a "(RCT)" immediately after the first instance of "randomized control trial" at the very least. However, I'm of the opinion that the acronym should have been expanded it the first paragraph, or even first sentence, since it's used in the subheader. Either way, this was definitely a failure on the author's part.